Read The Most Important Bits From NYC's Stop-And-Frisk Ruling

U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled New York City's stop-and-frisk policy unconstitutional, and said the practice, as applied, unfairly targeted blacks and Latinos.

Richard DrewAP

Originally published on August 13, 2013 4:33 pm

Judge Shira Scheindlin has earned a reputation as an outspoken defender of civil liberties and a recurring foil for the New York City police. In her ruling in the closely watched stop-and-frisk case, Scheindlin criticized the police, and said the department discriminated against blacks and Latinos. She also said the police force has long ignored complaints about the way the tactic has been carried out. (Since this policy was implemented, the overwhelming number of the 4 million people stopped by police since the program began have been black or Latino. In 2011, the number of stops of black men ages 14-24 actually exceeded the city's total population of black men in that age group.) The city has argued that the tactic has helped drive down violent crime. But Scheindlin reiterated that her concern is about the policy's constitutionality, not its effectiveness.

In her pointed, 190-page opinion on the trial, Scheindlin deemed the prevailing practice of stop-and-frisk unconstitutional and tantamount to racial profiling. She also quoted President Obama's remarks in the aftermath of the George Zimmerman trial, in which he talked about his experiences being profiled, and she extensively cited the testimony of several police whistle-blowers who said their superiors pressured them into making baseless stops.